I think he's referring to the questions themselves being asked in English or the mothers tongue of a certain ethnic's.

Even with the best back-translation IQ test (English-BM-English), it is still culturally biased. When we assess native children (orang asli), they may not even reach 80-90 score because they do not grow up in a domino-shapes-numbers environment. It does not necessarily mean they have mild mental retardation, instead they do show great "realistic" IQ gauge in their culture by knowing how to hunt/sow and whatnot.

If the orang Asli decided to create an IQ test base on their understanding, most of us would fail miserably

If you follow carefully with the new age movement, I'd say both are equally important. However, organizations are selecting individuals with better EQ if say both candidates have the same qualifications (i.e. First class honors). That is to say IQ is the baseline while EQ predicts who will actually be in favor to get the job. But from what I know, most conglomerates now value EQ, especially leadership skills, higher than before. The reason is simple: Companies like Shell and GE spend loads of time, effort and $$ to train fresh-graduates that may not have the necessary skills needed to do their job, but show great potential base on their EQ evaluations.

But then again, how accurate are these EQ tests? lol

for me IQ is more about knowledge, the more u know the better chance for u 2 score in the IQ test, so the test result is not accurate enough to differentiate people intelligent...

iq and eq tests were all biasely made in hopes to hit the right note going about explaining the human's wit. simply put, the grey area is substantial in evaluating a persons intelligence by just questions on a paper.

case in point, the slumdog millionaire, the kid may not be smart but he was blessed with the luck to apply past experiences to the questions posed as answers.

But that was a movie, no? Sorry I think that basing an argument on a movie is rather, unsubstantial.